Story Highlights

As a child, I was dismayed to learn we didn't vote directly for the president. Rather, we voted for electors who then voted for president several weeks after the election.

However, the more I learn about our Electoral College, the more I'm convinced it's the best choice.

How it works

Studying the Electoral College in college widened my perspective. The system was created to empower smaller states and to discourage regional "power" centers. It was meant to be a compromise between electing a president through a popular vote and having one chosen by Congress.

The number of a state's representatives and senators determines how many Electoral College votes. Larger states still have the most impact, but because each state has two senators added to the number of representatives who are apportioned by population, the effect is to give extra weight to smaller states.

Each state's election results determines who makes up the Electoral College. In most states, it is a winner-take-all system. All Electoral College votes go to the candidate winning the state's popular vote, even if by a small margin. (The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes are awarded by congressional district, with the statewide winner awarded two bonus votes.)

History

America has wrestled with the selection of its executive since its founding. The Articles of Confederation in 1781 gave the greatest power to the states. The Constitution gave us a stronger president, but colonial memories of a king remained, so power was to be limited. The Virginia Plan saw a president by Congress.

Eventually the Electoral College was chosen, but with controversy. Alexander Hamilton defended the notion in Federalist Paper No. 68, concerned a popular election could elect unqualified individuals.

But Anti-Federalist Paper No. 72 argued the only right to government came from the people: "They, and only they, have a right to determine whether they will make laws, or execute them, or do both in a collective body, or by a delegated authority."

Controversy remains, in part because a president has won the office while losing the national popular vote four times, most recently in 2000.

National Popular Vote

Periodically efforts come to impose the Anti-Federalist's vision of popular vote. National Popular Vote sounds innocuous and friendly. People would know the vote was theirs. Proponents claim although the Constitution formed the Electoral College, it didn't give specific rules so states could choose to compel electors to follow a popular vote. And some polls suggest a majority of Americans support NPV.

By now, NPV has been introduced in all state legislatures. In Minnesota, HF 799 would have made the Electoral College second fiddle if enough states, a majority of the 538 electors, adopted the plan.

While sounding good, this raises many questions: Would this weaken the sovereignty of a state? Could a state have its own voting rules when it is participating in a national election under NPV? For example, some states could require a photo ID for voting while others do not.

Would that stand judicial review, or would the states lose the ability to create their own election law? What effect would the NPV have on third parties? Would politicians bother to visit states with low population numbers?

When we have amended our Constitution, we have done so using the mechanism of passing it first in Congress then sending it to the states. This system has served us well. NPV tries to circumvent this method, but it is unclear what problem it is trying to solve.

It seems like the Electoral College has served us pretty well for 200 years. And even though our system of elections may not be perfect, our republic has survived — and prospered — for over 200 years. I hope we stay with the electoral system we have now.

This is the opinion of Barbara Banaian, a professional pianist who lives in the St. Cloud area. Her column is published the first Friday of the month.